From owner-freebsd-isp  Fri Apr 18 16:23:38 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA12209
          for isp-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Wicked.eaznet.com ([206.62.254.2])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA12136
          for <isp@freebsd.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eddie ([206.62.254.22]) by Wicked.eaznet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA00273; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:24:24 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <3357FEE5.4DBB@eaznet.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:08:21 -0700
From: Eddie Fry <eddie@eaznet.com>
Organization: Creative Solutions
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Blaine Minazzi <bminazzi@denverweb.net>
CC: isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: News...
References: <199704181657.JAA02594@root.com> <3357A50E.3BE60349@denverweb.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Blaine Minazzi wrote:
> 
> David Greenman wrote:
> 
> > do. If you chose to chop out 90% of the Usenet content with full knowledge
> > that you will lose customers and make less money, than that's just being a
> > morality Czar and has nothing to do with the economics.
> >
> > -DG
> >
> > David Greenman
> > Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
> 
> What does morality have to do with not pissing away bandwidth?
> 
> So... leave the porn in, and risk a lawsuit. take it out and risk a
> lawsuit.
> Screw it, go with the low bandwidth solution.
> 
> If the porn  REALLY is 90% of usenet content, then we certainly need to
> fix it.
> 
> I don't buy the fact that our incomes would suffer greatly by simple
> having the customer
> fetch the stuff from  smut_r_us.com rather than us having to store
> hundreds of megs of
> this shit on our servers, just so someone can get their rocks off.  If I
> want to make money
> in that arena, I would open a strip club or adult bookstore.
> 
> It is still available, we just dont shuffle  a gazzillion megs of the
> shit around daily.
> Since most of it is the same "back issues" and same old files, it's
> REALLY a bandwidth pisser.
> 
> Economics is simple.  You make the choices YOU think are most benificial
> to the company.
> You live with the results.
> 
> Blaine

I am in TOTAL agreement.  I don't think anyone's going to lose customers
because they don't keep this junk on a local drive.  If anything, change
your focus from "WE GIVE YOU EVERYTHING A SMUT-LOVER WOULD WANT" to "WE
GIVE YOU FASTER ACCESS AND DOWNLOAD SPEEDS" because we don't jam our
lines with smut.

Eddie